Negligence – Bank Liability – Cheque Forgery – The first appellate court found the bank negligent for clearing cheques with forged signatures of the plaintiff's Managing Director without proper verification – The trial court dismissed the suit for insufficient evidence, but the appellate court reversed this, holding the bank responsible for negligence in comparing the signatures – However, the High Court restored the trial court's decision, stating that the comparison of signatures required expert evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, and the first appellate court wrongly assumed the role of a handwriting expert under Section 73 [Paras 26-34, 39-40].

Bar of Subsequent Suit – Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – The first suit related to one cheque, while the second suit concerned six other cheques – The High Court held that the second suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, as the plaintiff failed to seek leave to file subsequent suits despite a composite cause of action existing when the first suit was filed – The claim that separate suits could be filed for different cheques was rejected [Paras 30-36].

Section 73 Evidence Act – Comparison of Signatures by Court – The first appellate court compared the disputed signatures of the Managing Director with those on other documents without expert evidence – The High Court criticized this approach, stating that Section 73 allows comparison only in limited circumstances and should be used cautiously – The High Court held that the bank officials could not be held liable solely based on the court's signature comparison [Paras 26-28, 42].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 85 and Banker's Protection – The bank claimed protection under Section 85(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that it had cleared the cheques in good faith – The High Court found that the cheques, allegedly bearing forged signatures, did not qualify as valid negotiable instruments under the Act, thereby negating the bank's defense under Section 85(2) [Paras 33-38].

Decision: The second appeals were allowed, and the first appellate court's judgment was set aside. The trial court's decision dismissing both suits was restored. Any deposited amount under interim orders was directed to be refunded to the appellant bank with interest [Paras 40-43].

Murder – Conspiracy and Common Intention – Section 302 read with 120B IPC – Conviction Affirmed – The appellants were convicted for the murder of the deceased, Ramchandra Jha, based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-6), who identified the appellants as the perpetrators – The court upheld the conviction, noting the clear role each appellant played in the attack, including direct participation in firing the shots – The conspiracy to commit the murder was proven through consistent testimony, corroborated by circumstantial evidence [Paras 10, 15, 17, 22].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability of Family Members – The court upheld the reliability of the testimonies given by the informant (P.W.-1) and her son (P.W.-6), rejecting the defense's contention that they were unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased – The court held that the family members’ evidence was consistent, detailed, and corroborated by medical evidence, making it credible despite minor contradictions [Paras 13-14, 24-26].

Arms Act – Illegal Possession and Use of Firearms – Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 – Appellant Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu was convicted under the Arms Act for possessing and using a country-made pistol, with forensic evidence confirming the match between the firearm and the bullets recovered from the scene – The court affirmed his conviction under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act, finding the recovery of arms to be lawful and properly evidenced [Paras 18-21].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Not Fatal – The court dismissed the defense's argument that the delay in filing the FIR undermined the prosecution's case, ruling that the delay was adequately explained due to the emotional and traumatic state of the informant, who had witnessed her husband's murder – The FIR was lodged within a reasonable time considering the circumstances [Paras 27-30].

Decision: All appeals were dismissed – The court upheld the life sentences imposed on the appellants for murder under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, as well as the concurrent sentences under the Arms Act – The trial court's decision to impose fines and direct compensation payments to the informant was also upheld [Paras 33-34].

Tenancy Rights – Inheritance of Tenancy – Section 2(j) H.P. Urban Rent Control Act – Eviction Ordered – The appellants argued that they inherited the tenancy after the death of Rajesh Kochhar, the original tenant’s son, under Section 2(j) of the Act. The court held that after the deaths of Rajesh and Prakash Kochhar, the tenancy did not devolve further to the legal heirs, and the respondents, as owners, were entitled to possession. – Held: The eviction was upheld, and the respondents were granted possession of the suit property. [Paras 13, 16-18].

Maintainability of Suit – Plea of Authorized Signatory – Suit Held Maintainable – The appellants questioned the competence of the authorized signatory of the respondent trust to file the suit. The court rejected this contention, noting the valid resolution authorizing Mohit Gupta to file the suit on behalf of the trust. – Held: The objection regarding maintainability was dismissed, confirming the suit’s validity. [Paras 20-22].

Mesne Profits – Use and Occupation Charges – Rs. 500/- per Day Granted – The respondents claimed Rs. 500/- per day as use and occupation charges. The appellants did not specifically deny the claim, and under Order 8 Rule 5 CPC, the court considered it admitted. – Held: The respondents were entitled to Rs. 500/- per day as use and occupation charges until possession was delivered. [Paras 26-28].

Adverse Possession – Claim Not Raised at Trial – Barred at Appeal Stage – The appellants attempted to raise a plea of adverse possession during the appeal, despite not having raised it in the trial court. The court disallowed the plea, reaffirming the respondents’ absolute right to recover possession unless adverse possession for 12 years had been proven. – Held: The plea of adverse possession was rejected. [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant, Mauje Lal Sahani, convicted for the murder of Munna Singh (deceased) inside Motihari central jail – Trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for offenses under Sections 302/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act – Conviction challenged on grounds of inconsistent witness testimony and improper seizure of firearms – Amicus Curiae argued contradictions in witness accounts and lack of proper sanction for explosive charges – High Court partially upheld the conviction while noting procedural violations under the Explosive Substances Act – Held: Conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act set aside, but conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 3, 34, 35, 36].

Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies in Eye-Witness Statements – P.W. 9 (informant) claimed to have witnessed the entire incident, including the appellant firing at the victim – Minor contradictions regarding the position of the victim during the shooting noted – Other witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 7) did not directly observe the shooting but provided circumstantial evidence – Court found P.W. 9’s testimony credible and consistent with medical evidence, while the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 7 were discounted as unreliable due to inconsistencies [Paras 18, 19, 20, 31].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Firearms – A pistol was allegedly recovered from the appellant’s possession during a search conducted after the incident – The recovered firearm matched shell casings found at the crime scene – Defense challenged the seizure, claiming discrepancies in the testimony of P.W. 8 and the investigating officer (P.W. 12) – Court held the seizure valid and corroborative of the appellant’s involvement in the crime [Paras 28, 33, 34].

Explosive Substances Act – Improper Conviction – Appellant charged under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act but convicted under Sections 3 and 4 – No sanction obtained under Section 7 of the Act – High Court held that the conviction under Section 4 was improper due to the lack of requisite sanction and improper framing of charges – Conviction under the Explosive Substances Act was set aside [Paras 34, 35].

Decision: Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act upheld – Conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act set aside – Sentence for murder maintained, and appellant to serve life imprisonment – [Paras 36, 37].

Employment Law - Appointment Process – Provisional vs. Final Merit List – The petitioner, who was ranked first in the provisional merit list for the post of ANM, challenged the appointment of the respondent, who was ranked first in the final merit list after re-scrutiny – Held: Mere empanelment in a provisional list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The final merit list, prepared after re-scrutiny, placed the respondent at the top, and the petitioner as waitlisted – The appointment of the respondent was valid and in accordance with the law [Paras 1, 5].

Bias and Malafide Allegations – Rejection of Claims – The petitioner alleged bias and malafide action by the authorities in appointing the respondent – Held: No evidence of arbitrariness or malafide action was found in the preparation of the final merit list or the appointment process. The writ petition was dismissed on merit [Paras 5, 6].

Right to Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Empanelment – The Court reaffirmed that empanelment in a merit list does not guarantee appointment, and the employer retains discretion, provided the process is not arbitrary – The petitioner's claim to the post based solely on her provisional ranking was rejected [Para 5].

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The appointment of the respondent was found to be lawful, as she ranked first in the final merit list after re-scrutiny. The interim orders are vacated [Paras 5, 6].

Advocate Appearance – Recording of Advocate’s Name in Order Sheets – Petition by a practicing advocate aggrieved by the omission of his name from orders in the Patiala House Court – Petitioner contended that despite several attempts, his appearances were not being recorded – Court observed that recording advocate names is crucial for professional acknowledgment and eligibility for chambers and bar elections – Directed Principal District and Sessions Judge to issue instructions for standardizing this practice across all District Courts in Delhi [Paras 5].

Court Order – Directions Issued for Recording Advocate Appearances – The Court emphasized the need for a uniform system to record advocate appearances – Suggested implementation of a mechanism like the ‘drop-box’ system for physical appearances or the ‘chat box’ used in virtual hearings – Court disposed of the petition with these directions [Paras 5].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Court directed Principal District Judge to ensure proper recording of advocate appearances in District Courts through standardized protocols.

Narcotic Drugs – Possession of Poppy Husk – Section 15 NDPS Act – Appeal Against Conviction – Evidence Required – The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possessing 11 quintals and 88 kilograms of poppy husk – The primary ground for appeal was the failure of the prosecution to produce key evidence, such as the examined cloth sample parcels, during the trial – Held: The non-production of the examined sample cloth parcels and reliance solely on the certified inventory and report of the Chemical Analyst do not suffice to prove the charge – Conviction quashed [Paras 8, 14-19].

Primary Evidence – Destruction of Samples – Section 52-A of NDPS Act – The Court analyzed the statutory provisions under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act regarding the disposal of narcotic drugs and the admissibility of certified inventory as primary evidence – Held: In the absence of the examined sample parcels being produced in court, the inventory and FSL report alone do not constitute primary evidence – The failure to adhere to the statutory process for producing primary evidence was fatal to the prosecution’s case [Paras 19-25].

Laboratory Testing – Legal Requirement for Representative Samples – The Court held that laboratory testing of the representative sample parcels in the presence of a Magistrate is essential under the NDPS Act, and non-compliance with this procedure invalidates the certified inventory as conclusive evidence – Appellant acquitted due to procedural lapses [Paras 16, 22-24].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction quashed – Appellant acquitted – Personal and surety bonds canceled – Appellant to be released unless required in another case – Fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal Allowed – Appellant, Raj Kumari, challenged her conviction for murder and robbery, arguing that the prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, which failed to establish an unbroken chain of events leading to her guilt – Held: The prosecution failed to prove the 'last seen' theory, as the appellant was last seen not in the company of the deceased but with other witnesses – Additionally, the recovery of the stolen ornaments based on the appellant's disclosure was legally flawed as the alleged confession did not adhere to Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The trial court erred in relying on the 'last seen' theory and the defective recovery to convict the appellant [Paras 28, 34].

Last Seen Theory – Section 106 of Evidence Act – Inconsistent Witness Testimonies – The prosecution's reliance on the 'last seen' theory was not supported by conclusive evidence – The two key witnesses, PW Kamlesh Kumari and PW Darshan Singh, gave conflicting testimonies regarding the appellant's demeanor and movements on the night of the crime – The inconsistency in their accounts and the absence of direct evidence undermined the prosecution's case [Paras 24, 26].

Recovery of Ornaments – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Defective Procedure – The appellant's alleged disclosure leading to the recovery of stolen gold ornaments from a goldsmith was found to be procedurally defective – The investigating officer admitted that the disclosure memo was prepared after the recovery, violating the legal standards of admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The court found that the recovery was staged and did not credibly connect the appellant to the crime [Paras 30, 31].

Decision – The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside – The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and her bail bonds were discharged – The court ordered the immediate release of the appellant [Paras 40, 41].

Criminal Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Filing of Criminal Appeals – Delay of 390 days in filing Appeals under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 – Petition by appellant/accused No. 2 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeals – Delay caused in filing the Criminal Appeals against orders dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Special Court for NIA Cases – The issue before the Court was whether the statutory period under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act could be extended beyond the second proviso, which limits the filing period to 90 days – Held: Delay of 390 days condoned, Appeals maintainable, subject to the Supreme Court's decision on this issue [Paras 1, 3, 5, 35, 36].

Interpretation of Law – Section 21(5) of NIA Act, 2008 – Scope of Condonation – Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be read into Section 21(5) of the NIA Act – Appellant argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply, allowing the condonation of delay – Special Public Prosecutor argued that the NIA Act provides its own timeline and that any further extension of time would contradict the object of the special statute – High Courts have provided inconsistent rulings on this issue, some allowing condonation based on Article 21 of the Constitution, others ruling against extension beyond 90 days – Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies as the NIA Act does not expressly exclude its application [Paras 5-9, 24-27, 31, 34].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Appeal – Article 21 of the Constitution – High Court relied on Article 21, stating that procedural law cannot deprive a person of their right to Appeal, which is a part of the fundamental right to life and liberty – Equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution invoked due to the NIA's inconsistent stance in different High Courts regarding condonation of delay under the NIA Act – Court emphasized that the law must apply equally to the accused and the Agency without discrimination [Paras 16, 19, 21-23, 29].

Judicial Inconsistency – Inconsistent Stances by NIA – The NIA adopted contradictory positions in different cases, supporting condonation of delay in some instances while opposing it in others – Court criticized this inconsistent application of law by the NIA, noting that it should not selectively argue for condonation of delay based on convenience [Paras 12, 14, 19].

Decision: Appeals maintainable – Delay of 390 days condoned – The Court allowed the delay considering the absence of any express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act from Section 21(5) of the NIA Act – However, this decision is subject to any future rulings by the Supreme Court on the same issue – I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.421 of 2024 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.425 of 2024 allowed and disposed of [Paras 35-37].